Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared
Ralph C. Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, known to me to be the persons
whose names are subscribed to the following instrument, and having been
duly sworn, upon their oaths, depose and state as follows:

I. We have prepared this affidavit at the request of John Doe, attorney
for Jane Roe. The issue is the importance of an interview and psychological
evaluation of the child who made the original allegation which was later
retracted.

II. (Updated biographical material added to establish expertise and basis
for opinions. Current recent research also added as relevant.)

III. We have regularly published articles and books and given workshops
and presentations at professional conferences on the topics of sexuality,
psychology and law, interviewing child witnesses, sexual abuse allegations,
and other professional issues. The curriculum vitae for each of us is attached
which lists our presentations, papers, and books.

IV. We have regularly conducted psychological evaluations of persons accused
of criminal offenses and we have also interviewed and/or evaluated many
child witnesses. Trial courts in over 25 states have ordered that we be
permitted to interview the child witness to conduct an adverse psychological
evaluation.

V. The Minnesota Appellate Court upheld the discretion and appropriateness
of the trial judge's order that Dr. Underwager conduct a psychological evaluation
of two child witnesses (Minnesota vs. Cain, C4-88-665). The Montana
Supreme Court ruled that it was proper for the trial judge to order a psychological
evaluation of the complaining witness by Dr. Underwager (Montana vs.
Malee, Cause no. DC-87-140). The Supreme Court of Louisiana ordered
that Dr. Underwager be permitted to examine the child witness in order for
the defendant to have the opportunity to adequately defend himself at his
trial (Louisiana vs. Hero, 358-916/940, Section "C').

The issue in this case is the veracity of the original allegation of sexual
abuse by the mother and the later retraction of that allegation. In order
to make the most accurate decision as to whether the original allegation
or the later retraction is true, all relevant information regarding these
two statements must be considered. An evaluation of the child by a psychologist
who is knowledgeable and experienced in conducting such interviews will
provide useful information to the finder-of-fact in making the most accurate
determination.

There is information in the science of psychology that will aid in evaluating
the statements of the child by the finder-of-fact. This information can
be used to evaluate both the original statement and the later retraction.
This information is not known to the general public and is available to
the finder-of-fact only through an expert witness.

The information obtained would enable the defense to present to the finder-of-fact
an explanation for the original allegation without having to attempt to
portray the child as a liar, perjurer, or deceiver. It would give the defense
an opportunity to respond to the state's position that the retraction is
false.

A psychological examination of the child will not only provide information
that will allow the defendant to have an adequate defense, but is crucial
in terms of the welfare and best course for the child. If a child, for whatever
reason, becomes involved in the development of a false allegation of sexual
abuse, this is not a benign or innocuous experience for the child. If this
child's allegation that her mother abused her is false, the negative long-term
consequences for the child if her retraction is not accepted by the finder-of-fact
can be extremely serious. We are personally familiar with a case in which
the teenaged child ultimately suicided after her false allegation led to
her father's incarceration.

But if the original allegation was accurate, and the retraction false, it
is also extremely important that the finder-of-fact recognize this in terms
of the child's welfare. Whatever trauma this child has experienced will
be greatly compounded by a mistaken decision by the finder-of-fact.